By “Supreme Court Ruling on Nagananda Kodituwakku: Legal Career Impact and Fairness Concerns”
“Explore the details of the Supreme Court ruling that led to the removal of Nagananda Kodituwakku, Attorney-at-Law, and the consequential impact on his legal career. Learn about the three-judge bench verdict, concerns over fair trial practices, and the restrictions on public interest litigation. Delve into the issues of professional conduct breaches, complaints, and the constitutional violation related to naming parliamentarians on the national list.”
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court issued a ruling resulting in the removal of Nagananda Kodituwakku from his position as an Attorney-at-Law. The verdict, delivered by three-judge bench comprising Justices Priyantha Jayawardena, Preethi Padman Surasena, and S. Thurairaja, has far-reaching consequences for Kodituwakku’s legal career.
The decision to remove Kodituwakku came after a thorough consideration of a complaint, outlining alleged breaches of professional conduct. The Supreme Court justices concluded that Kodituwakku had engaged in actions inconsistent with the expected standards of legal professionals. How ever Naganada claims that the case was not called for along time.
Justice Sri Pawan
The charges were centred around an issue related to naming parliamentarians on the national list, with Kodituwakku contending that his actions aimed to prevent rejected politicians from entering parliament, citing a violation of the constitution. Notably, the complaint lodged by former Chief Justice Sri Pawan raised concerns over professional conduct .Although Naganada requested the court to summon former Chief Justice Sri Pawan to give evidence in court that did not happen.
Nagananda challenged national list parliment appointments appointments before the Supreme Court, and requested the Chief Justice to appoint seven judges to hear this case, considering the National Importance of the issues involved. However Chief Justice Sripavan ruled that according to his opinion, issues involved in the case lacks any National Importance and refused to appoint a full bench to hear the case.
Kodituwakku, however, asserts that he has been unfairly prevented from making representations in public litigation cases. This restriction is deemed unacceptable by Kodituwakku, who vows to speak out against the Supreme Court’s decision and remain undeterred from pursuing legal actions.
This Supreme Court ruling, impacts on Kodituwakku’s legal career, addressing concerns over fair trial practices, and outlining the restrictions on his involvement in public interest litigation. Stay informed about the intricacies of professional conduct breaches, complaints lodged against Kodituwakku, and the constitutional implications of his case.
Sri Lanka Customs
Kodituwakku began his career in the Sri Lanka Customs Administration on 17 April 1978 as an Assistant Superintendent of Customs. His firm stance against corruption meant that his life in the customs administration was not safe and hence he was issued a personal revolver. He was interdicted twice, for bribery allegations and for assisting a fellow customs officer whilst on interdiction, however, he was exonerated of all charges and appointed as the Head of the Revenue Task Force in Sri Lanka Customs until his departure from the administration and Sri Lanka in 2001 under life-threatening circumstances.
Bribery Allegations
On 13 February 1986, Kodituwakku was remanded with the charge of accepting a bribe, an allegation later found to be false. During his time on remand he received intel of a threat to his life and at his own request, he was transferred to solitary confinement alongside prisoners on death row in Walikada Prison for a period of 14 days. After three years of arrest and interdiction, Kodituwakku fought his case with no legal representation. On 27 November 1992, the allegations were proven to be unfounded.
Public Litigation
As a public interest litigator, Kodituwakku has over a dozen cases in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. In March 2019, The Supreme Court issued Kodituwakku a 3 years suspension from practicing law following a contempt of court charge, however Kodituwakku has gone on to represent these cases as his rights a citizen.
